- I understand where you're going with your numbers. I'm not sure if I can take those numbers at face value though. I feel it's underrating the oldtimers, but then again, I never been into those kind of statistical. I will recognize my limit with them. I also understand that Corbeau played during a split era. However, the only defenceman that was better offensively than Corbeau is Joe Simpson and two undrafted players. While most agree that the PCHA and the NHA were equal leagues in the 1910's, the NHL was quite a bit better than both the PCHA and the WCHL.

Just to clarify, as those statistics still confuse me a little bit, why are you taking the #2 scorer and not the #1, is it because Corbeau played in a split era? I would like you to explain in a couple of sentances how those stats works: 'Stats for dummies'!

- I assume you mean the only defensemen better than Corbeau offensively outside of the NHL - right? Because there were quite a few in the NHL. furthermore, a number of defensemen in the western leagues were scoring a similar percentage of points as the leading defensemen (Simpson and the undrafteds) as Corbeau and there is no reason to suggest that is less impressive. If you think the west was "quite a bit" weaker than the east, you'll have to explain why western players dominated when the leagues merged, why so many of them are in the hall, and why the west won almost as many games in cup challenges as the east (and actually scored more total goals thanks to a few blowouts)

- yes, the reason Corbeau is compared to #1 is because it is a split era. Logically, the #1 scorer in either league is most likely either the #1 or #2 overall. So instead of being compared to #2 like modern players, it sort of like a "vs. #1.5" comparison, which is more than fair because the pool was thinner anyway.

- OK, stats for Dummies (or, why this is better than pretending raw rankings mean anything special): Basically in the ATD, we try to view all eras on a level playing field over a period of 100+ years. For that reason, Harry Cameron's 35 points (which led all defensemen, likely in all three leagues) in 1922, and, let's say, nicklas Lidstrom's 70 points in 2008, which led all defensemen, are considered to be about the same value. that's the easy part. But what of the players behind them? Should we just say that 2nd=2nd, and 3rd=3rd, and 4th=4th? I say no, and here's why. If what Lidstrom and what Cameron did are equally impressive, than players who scored the same percentage as them are equally impressive too.

So, Sprague Cleghorn's 26 points are very similar to Chara's 9th-place finish with 51 points, as each had about 74% of their respective leader. Boucher's 3rd place with 25, adn is more similar to the guy in 12th (69-71%). I'll skip #4. In 5th is Gerard, whose 18 points place him 5th, but that is just 51% of the leader Lidstrom. You have to go down to 28th among D-men to come to a player with that percentage in 2009. If you were to adjust Gerard's 5th to a "merged" finish of 9th-13th, you're still overrating his season by about 10-20 points in modern standards.

Why is this? Two reasons. 1) in larger leagues there is more opportunity for the players near the top to post similar numbers. 2) In a smaller league, only the very best "overall" defensemen make the grade. There very well may have been better offensive defensemen out there, but they couldn't compete in other areas. So what we have when we look at the list of defense scoring leaders is not the best offensive defensemen in the world, but just the best offensive defensemen in the NHL, and the large percentage differences between them demonstrate that they are not often that close to eachother. Following expansion, there were more teams and larger rosters, and a lot more room for "specialists" and now we are definitely at the point where the NHL defense scoring leaders actually are a representation of the best offensive defensemen in the world.

- Obviously! Players like Harry Cameron and Buck Boucher are head and shoulders above Corbeau offensively. I'm also not saying that the WCHL or PCHA were quite a bit weaker than the NHL in general (although I believe the NHL was quite clearly the best league from his get go), what I tried to say is that the NHL had a much better bunch of offensive defenceman on their rank than the PCHA and WCHL combine. It was much tougher for a Bert Corbeau to crack a high score offensively in the NHL than it would of been in the PCHA/WCHL. From roughly the start of the NHL, quality defenceman are quite shallow in the PCHA/WCHL in comparision to the NHL. From the top of my head, they probably boosted the Top-4 defenceman in the world at that time. With that in my mind, a 4th position in NHL should be viewed more highly than a 4th position in the PCHA/WCHL, so a standard 3rd=6th or 5th=10th shouldn't be the norm.

Why is this? Two reasons. 1) in larger leagues there is more opportunity for the players near the top to post similar numbers. 2) In a smaller league, only the very best "overall" defensemen make the grade. There very well may have been better offensive defensemen out there, but they couldn't compete in other areas. So what we have when we look at the list of defense scoring leaders is not the best offensive defensemen in the world, but just the best offensive defensemen in the NHL, and the large percentage differences between them demonstrate that they are not often that close to eachother. Following expansion, there were more teams and larger rosters, and a lot more room for "specialists" and now we are definitely at the point where the NHL defense scoring leaders actually are a representation of the best offensive defensemen in the world.

I still have mixed feelings about the percentage approach, but I just want to say that I definitely agree with this reasoning behind it. Especially #2 - would an offensive specialist like Phil Housley have been able to cut it in a smaller league where teams rolled with 2-4 defensemen? I have my doubts.

I still have mixed feelings about the percentage approach, but I just want to say that I definitely agree with this reasoning behind it. Especially #2 - would an offensive specialist like Phil Housley have been able to cut it in a smaller league where teams rolled with 2-4 defensemen? I have my doubts.

I have no doubt that Housley would of converted as a winger if he had played 100 years ago.

Herbie Lewis was born in Calgary, Alberta, and was to become known for his relentless defence and blinding speed during an eleven-year career in the NHL. He was rough for a little guy, a good defensive winger and accurate playmaker, and considered the fastest skater in the NHL in his day with his trademark short, mincing steps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier

One of the most electrifying players in the 1930s,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wings Official Site

A small, quick left-winger, Lewis possessed blazing speed on his blades and had a reputation as an accurate playmaker and a gentlemanly player.

-Inducted into the HHOF in 1989
-Stanley Cups in 1936, 1937
-Red Wings captain in 33-34
-Elected as the starting LW in the very first first NHL All-Star game
-7 Time 30 point scorer in an era when that was a significant accomplishment

He participated in the first NHL All-Star game in 1934 (the Ace Bailey Benefit Game) and went on to lead the team in playoff scoring with five goals. He played in the longest NHL game on March 24-25, 1936, when Detroit defeated the Montreal Maroons 1-0 after six overtime periods. The Wings went on to capture the 1936 Stanley Cup and won it again the next year as Lewis combined on a line with Marty Barry and XX XXX to dominate almost every game of the finals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier

Lewis was once described by coach XXX XXX as "a sportsman of the highest type. I defy baseball or football or boxing or any other sport to produce an individual who can eclipse Herbie Lewis as a perfect model of what an athlete should stand for."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wings Official Site

(1933-34) was also this season that Lewis and right-winger Larry Aurie, his regular linemate, represented Detroit in the first NHL All-Star Game, a benefit match for Toronto forward Ace Bailey, whose career was cut short by a head injury suffered in a game against Boston.

When XXX picked up Marty Barry from Boston to center Aurie and Lewis, the trio immediately clicked, sparking Detroit to successive Cup wins. Toronto manager Conn Smythe described the unit as, "The best line in hockey, coming and going.

More on Playoffs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier

. The lethal combination of Lewis, Barry and Aurie led the Wings to back to back championships in 1936 and 1937 - the first two championships in Detroit's history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wings Official Site

Lewis captained the Red Wings to their first Stanley Cup final appearance in 1933-34 and scored the first Stanley Cup final goal and first playoff overtime marker in club history. He finished as the leading goal scorer in that spring's post-season.

Lewis was a star before he ever came to the NHL:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wings Official Site

Long before he made the leap to the NHL, Herbie Lewis was a wanted man. The Montreal Maroons signed him in 1926, but the deal was voided by NHL president Frank Calder, since Lewis was already under contract to the American Hockey Association's Duluth Hornets.

Lewis was a star with the Hornets, leading the team in scoring in 1925-26, earning the nickname "The Duke of Duluth" in the process. He was the league's biggest drawing card and its highest-paid performer.

Detroit manager Jack Adams astutely scooped up this budding star through the 1928 inter-league draft and Lewis blossomed in the Motor City.

At any rate, putting Tkachuk on your first unit powerplay would raise questions about how much offensive value you can squeeze out of Gordie Drillon, whose game was also largely predicated on standing in front of the net and collecting garbage. Both of them cannot realistically play on the same powerplay unit. I think you've sailed between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis here.

How much research into Drillon have you done? Honest question. While there are many mentions of 'garbage' goals, I went back to his best year (1937-38) and tried to find descriptions of as many of his tallies as I could. Of his 26 goals that year, I found good descriptions of 14.

-Although four of twelve noted assists were clearly described as being on the powerplay, and writers in the day were not shy about highlighting man advantage tallies, just one of the Drillon goals I found was attributed as such. Could all of his other 12 goals have come on the powerplay? Sure, but you can surely admit that's highly unlikely.

-Of his fourteen goals, here's how they were scored:

Parked in crease/front of net- 4
Odd-man rushes- 3
Crashing the net- 2
Slapshot from high in the zone- 2
Breakaways- 2
One-timer near the faceoff circle- 1

Did he put in his fair share from in front? Sure, and at his size, he should have. But as the above shows, he was a varied scorer who could score from anywhere and didn't need powerplay goals to produce. He could easily sit on the second unit with Apps.

Conversely, Hawerchuk wouldn't look out of place on a top unit. In 1987-88- the first season the NHL tracked them- Hawerchuk was 4th in power play assists. Only Lemieux, Gretzky and Savard had more.

Finally, Tkachuk's career power play production. Are a number of his career goals on the power play? Yes, but look at this:

In addition, while you have a valid point about his post-season power play production, you neglect to mention that his ES production was almost identical- and, when broken down on a per-game basis, was consistently among the best. When the guy is scoring as many ES goals in one round as others did the entire post-season, it's harder to rag on the guy, isn't it?

1991-92: Tied for 5th in playoff ES goals per game
1992-93: Tied for 4th in playoff ES goals per game
1996-97: 3rd in playoff ES goals per game
1997-98: Tied for 3rd in playoff ES goals per game
2001-02: 2nd in playoff ES goals per game

Bugg, what you aren't mentioning (and both helps in hurts you) is that Tkachuk was a different player after 1998 or so. I had him before and I tried to show that he was constantly injured in the regular season for short periods of time after 1998 and his production declined slightly after this point. And this coincided with when he became a true playoff choker. Tkachuk's last really good playoff was in 1998 - before then, he was averaging about a goal every two games, which is actually excellent!

Both your numbers and sturm's tend to show that after 1998, he became something of a regular season PP specialist. That would fit into the "power forward who couldn't take the abuse anymore" type of player.

Both your numbers and sturm's tend to show that after 1998, he became something of a regular season PP specialist. That would fit into the "power forward who couldn't take the abuse anymore" type of player.

It would, there's no sense in denying that. He experienced a marked change starting around the turn of the millennium (not coincidentally after the year he missed 30 games for the first time) and became a powerplay guy. We're taking these players at their best and worst, however, and at his best, Tkachuk's ES scoring was good enough that it should cancel out his poor seasons prior to hitting 34 and the usual drop-off most players experience.

I see him like this:

1993-94 to 1998-99: Superstar (or close to it) valuable at ES and on the powerplay

1999-00: Injuries

2000-01 to 2003-04: Powerplay specialist who could produce enough to play on a top line

It would, there's no sense in denying that. He experienced a marked change starting around the turn of the millennium (not coincidentally after the year he missed 30 games for the first time) and became a powerplay guy. We're taking these players at their best and worst, however, and at his best, Tkachuk's ES scoring was good enough that it should cancel out his poor seasons prior to hitting 34 and the usual drop-off most players experience.

I see him like this:

1993-94 to 1998-99: Superstar (or close to it) valuable at ES and on the powerplay

1999-00: Injuries

2000-01 to 2003-04: Powerplay specialist who could produce enough to play on a top line

2005-06: Injuries

2006-06 to end of career: Second-line player

More or less, though his playoff performance in 1999 was the first of his legendary streak of awful playoffs. Before then, he was good in 4 of 5 playoffs, terrible in the other one.